National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to express deep concern about the Government’s decision to impose a £2,000 cap on salary sacrifice arrangements for pension contributions. This measure may appear technical, but its consequences for retirement saving are anything but trivial. It raises serious questions about the coherence of the Government’s approach to pension adequacy at a time when the nation can ill afford missteps.

Salary sacrifice has long been a legitimate and widely used mechanism, enabling employees to exchange part of their salary for pension contributions, benefiting from both tax and national insurance relief, as we have heard. It is not a loophole. It is not an avoidance scheme. It is a deliberate feature of the system that encourages people to save more for their retirement. By imposing this cap, the Government are restricting one of the few tools that has demonstrably helped individuals to boost their pension savings in a tax-efficient manner.

This decision comes at a time when the UK is confronting a substantial and widening retirement savings gap and when an independent commission is actively considering how best to strengthen pension adequacy. The evidence is stark. The Department for Work and Pensions acknowledged in 2025 that around 14.6 million working-age people are undersaving for retirement. The Scottish Widows Retirement Report 2025 shows that only 30% of the population is currently on track for a “comfortable retirement”, while 39% are at clear risk of falling short. Mercer—I declare my interest as an employee of their sister company Marsh—has repeatedly highlighted, most recently in 2024, the need for higher contributions if we are to close the savings gap.

Against this backdrop, it is difficult to understand how the Government can justify a policy that will, in effect, discourage additional voluntary saving. The commission’s message has been unambiguous: we must help people to save more for their later life, not place fresh obstacles in their path.

The scale of the impact is not marginal. According to the Government’s own explanatory notes, 3.3 million savers—around 44% of employees using salary sacrifice—stand to be affected. Many of these would not be considered high earners exploiting generous tax reliefs. Furthermore, there are lower and median earners who make occasional larger contributions when they can, often after life events or periods of financial stability. This cap will hit them the hardest. It risks undermining the ability of savers to build a secure retirement income at precisely the moment when demographic pressures, an ageing population and rising life expectancy make adequate saving more essential than ever.

There is a fundamental question of fairness. The pension adequacy commission is tasked with ensuring that all workers can aspire to a decent retirement income. Yet this cap risks creating a two-tier system: those who wish to save more are restricted, while those already struggling to save enough continue to face structural barriers. Rather than reducing inequalities in retirement outcomes, this measure threatens to entrench them.

The implications extend beyond individuals. Some 290,000 employers currently use salary sacrifice arrangements, benefiting from reduced employer national insurance contributions. If the cap reduces participation, employers will face higher national insurance liabilities, increasing the cost of employment. The OBR suggests that many employers will shift to ordinary pension contributions, including relief at source schemes.

Under these arrangements, employees will pay full income tax up front and reclaim it later, effectively giving the Exchequer an interest-free loan. In 2029-30, this manoeuvre raises £4.85 billion, before falling to £2.29 billion the following year when individuals reclaim the tax on the previous year. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government are playing cash-flow games with workers’ retirement savings while imposing yet another cost on employers. At a time when economic growth is desperately needed, this policy risks becoming yet another drag on the very companies we rely on to invest, innovate and employ. I urge the Government to reconsider.

A pensions system must be judged by its ability to help people build security for later life. Policies that restrict saving, complicate incentives or undermine confidence run counter to that mission. If we are serious about addressing the challenges of an ageing society, then tax and national insurance policy must align with and not work against the goal of pension adequacy. The Government still have time to correct their course. I hope they will do so, in the interests of savers, employers and the long-term financial health of our country.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in lieu in this group, particularly Amendment 21B by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, asking for an ex post review of the impact on various sectors of this jobs tax. It is official government policy, confirmed by the leader in the other place, that Parliament will be given the information it needs to scrutinise legislation properly, but, shamefully, the Treasury refused point blank to give the information that we requested in order to scrutinise this Bill properly. My noble friend’s amendment is modest and reasonable, and if the Government do not accept it then that will show a complete lack of respect for Parliament and the process of parliamentary scrutiny.

I want to underline a point made by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe about hospices. At the earlier stages of the Bill, the Minister kept repeating that the Government were putting £100 million into hospices and £26 million into children’s hospices. It is clear that neither of these amounts represents additional money available to absorb the cost pressures produced by the national insurance changes. My noble friend explained that, and I hope the Government will not try to pretend that the funding situation for hospices is anything other than completely dire at the moment.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to personalise this a little, because the hospice movement is unbelievably important in this country, and I am grateful to other noble Lords for raising the point again. I suppose that my family has been very fortunate, in unfortunate circumstances, to have the benefit of two hospices, both at end of life. Both hospices face significant shortfalls in their annual running costs and live off the back of occasional big legacies. They already have to raise substantial amounts of money, and the national insurance increase puts yet more pressure on the system. We have had the increase in minimum wages, which means that they have suffered those costs in addition; doctors and nurses do not come cheap, as we know. This just drives costs up further—for the hospice closest to home, the figure is nearly £0.5 million.

So what does the national insurance increase mean? In this particular case, it means either the loss of three nurses, who conduct some nearly 4,000 visits a year in the community, preventing the need for hospital care, or losing one bed, which would be dedicated to the most complex needs for patients at the end of their life.

If hospices are forced to reduce their care to the community, what happens next? They play such a critical role in supporting the NHS, which is not subject to the increase, both in terms of community care and in easing pressure on acute beds in hospitals, as well as facilitating discharges from hospital. If the Government continue to impose financial strain on the hospice sector, more hospices will be forced to scale back services or even close. That is something we cannot live with in this country, and it would place yet greater strain on the NHS—a particularly difficult sector, as we know, and one that we are trying not to pressure any further. When salary increases for medical staff and the rises in national insurance are factored in, this particular hospice will have to raise yet another £200,000 on top of the £0.5 million that I mentioned earlier, and that hospice is but one of 200 fantastic operations in this country.

I make again the point that various noble Lords have made: the recent announcement of the £100 million funding from His Majesty’s Government for the hospice movement and the £26 million for the children’s hospices is for capital projects, which, while very welcome, does not help this particular situation—a situation that the Prime Minister singularly seemed to ignore at PMQs last week. I beg the Government to reconsider their position.

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of these amendments and to speak very briefly about hospices—which I know many noble Lords have already done. Our hospices support over 300,000 people, mostly in the community, and this tax will cost the sector hundreds of thousands of pounds. Beds will close and outreach services will be decimated. Where will people go to die? Yes, hospitals offer palliative care, but only four out of 10 hospitals have the services that are necessary seven days a week, despite this having been a national standard in 2004.

The assisted suicide Bill is being debated in the other place. Assisted dying is what hospices do: ensuring that people can die in dignity, are properly cared for and can live as fully as they are capable of right to the end of their life. We only die once. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has said previously: that not exempting hospices from this tax is shockingly cruel. But it is worse than that, because it shows a lack of compassion and an absence of humanity that are truly shocking. It leaves me speechless, and I have nothing more to say.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, as declared in the register of interests, I work for Marsh Ltd, a subsidiary of MMC Inc, which also owns Mercer, a global consulting firm that offers solutions for investments, retirement, health and benefits. That sounds a bit like an ad but it is important in this case.

The proposed changes to employers’ national insurance contributions represent not just a fiscal adjustment but a direct and tangible tax on the future economic growth of the United Kingdom. Why? First, we must consider the immediate impact on UK businesses, which are already navigating a minefield of challenges. Rising operational costs, muted consumer spending and the lingering effects of recent economic shocks have left many companies struggling to grow. Imposing an additional financial burden in the form of increased national insurance contributions is akin to asking a runner, already fatigued, to carry an additional weight uphill. It is not just ill-timed; it is counterproductive.

In the context of global markets, the implications are even more concerning. The rise in national insurance will make the UK less competitive on the world stage. Again, why? It is because each new recruit will now come with a higher cost to businesses. For multinational corporations deciding where to expand or establish a new branch or headquarters, or for fast-growing start-ups seeking an environment conducive to scaling up, the UK is no longer the obvious choice. Instead, it will be perceived as more expensive, less attractive and a riskier proposition for those with ambitious growth plans. This is not the signal that we should be sending to the world.

Moving on to the hard-working people of this country, the financial burden imposed on businesses does not exist in isolation. Businesses facing these costs have limited options to maintain profitability. They may choose to freeze or reduce pay rises, adjust prices for goods and services, or cut back on benefits and pension contributions. There is an assumption that businesses can just cut fat from their operations, but no, as it is often now not there to cut. In every scenario, it is the workers and consumers who will bear the brunt of this decision.

Already, the data is telling. Around one-fifth of business leaders questioned in spot polls by Mercer have indicated that they intend to reduce their budgets for salary increases as a direct result of these changes. Another 17% are in a holding pattern, unable to make definitive plans for pay adjustments. Perhaps more concerning is the finding that a fifth of businesses are shelving hiring plans altogether. These are not abstract numbers. I would add, as did my noble friend Lady Noakes, that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that, by 2026-27, some 76% of the total cost of national insurance contributions will be passed on through a squeeze on workers’ pay rises and increased prices.

This punitive tax, which affects all businesses, is having a disproportionate impact on sectors that employ large numbers of lower-paid workers, such as the retail, care, non-profit and hospitality sectors, to name but a few, since the threshold drop-down affects a more significant proportion of pay. The hospitality industry—one of the cornerstones of our economy and culture—is a prime example. UKHospitality has warned that a third of businesses in the sector are already operating at or below breakeven. The additional burden of the increased national insurance contributions could push many over the edge. It is not just about numbers on a balance sheet; it is about the vibrancy of our communities, the livelihoods of countless workers, and the health of an industry that has already endured so much.

Survey data from the Confederation of British Industry, representing 170,000 businesses, paints an even grimmer picture. Nearly two-thirds of firms anticipate that the hike in national insurance will negatively impact their investment plans, and half have indicated that they may need to reduce headcount as a result. Meanwhile, confidence among members of the Institute of Directors has plummeted to near record lows, echoing the sentiment of businesses at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic. The IoD has stated:

“Far from fixing the foundations, the Budget has undermined them, damaging the private sector’s ability to invest in their businesses and their workforces”.


The long-term consequences will be important. From listening to the voices of business, I note that these changes will come with significant opportunity costs. Reduced hiring and investment will not just slow growth but create a cycle of stagnation: less hiring means fewer opportunities for workers, which in turn reduces consumer spending and diminishes economic activity. No business is immune. This is not a path to prosperity but a recipe for regression.

The knock-on effects extend beyond the private sector. A sluggish economy means reduced tax revenues for the Treasury, leaving the Government with fewer resources to invest in vital public services. The irony is glaring: a policy ostensibly designed to generate revenue for public goods—the NHS, social care and so on—could ultimately undermine their funding. At a time when these services are needed more than ever, we cannot afford such a misstep.

We cannot will economic growth into existence through further taxation and burdens on businesses. Growth requires investment, innovation and a competitive environment that attracts talent and capital. The UK must be a place where businesses feel confident to expand, hire and innovate. This requires policies that incentivise growth, not stifle it.

The proposed changes to national insurance contributions represent a tax on workers, on growth and, ultimately, on the Government themselves. This policy must be rethought to prioritise measures that enable businesses to thrive. Competitive tax incentives, streamlined regulations and targeted support for key industries are just some of the ways that can foster an environment conducive to growth.

This is about not just economic metrics or fiscal policy but the kind of country that we want to be. Do we want to be a nation that penalises ambition and stifles potential, or do we want to be a beacon of opportunity, attracting the best and brightest, and empowering our businesses and workers to succeed? The answer, I believe, is clear: growth and opportunity must be chosen, with policies that support, rather than hinder, the aspirations of our people and businesses. The Government need to ensure that the UK remains a competitive, dynamic and prosperous nation. Let us reject the false economy of punitive taxation and embrace a future built on investment, innovation and shared prosperity.